Talk:Fasolasuchus

Skull reconstruction
I was thinking on adding a version of my Fasolasuchus skull reconstruction to the article but I found out there was already a reconstruction here by, which is fine but I noticed that it resembles a lot my reconstruction, including the completely speculative relative size between the premaxilla and maxilla (different specimens, none of the overlapping material was ever illustrated or measurements were given), the relative size of the back of the skull compared to the maxilla resulting in an estimated length of 90cm was also novel to my reconstruction, in the literature there is only an estimate of 130cm. If it's a trace of my reconstruction, it should at least include an attribution, of course it's entirely possible Ghedo just got to the same conclusions looking at the same evidence and I was curious to discuss it but Ghedo does not appear to respond to any comments in his talk page. It seems you have had some interaction with the person in question,, any insights? Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is of course not so good practice, I think he is easier to contact on Wikimedia Commons than here (he is mainly active there and on the Italian Wikipedia)... For the record, his hundreds of photos from museums are really invaluable, though... FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see responses from him in his Wikimedia Commons talk page but I guess I'll try, superimposing both it does seem like a trace but again, I won't reject it being just coincidence and yeah, I did see all those museum photos. Mike.BRZ (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)